english language teaching vol. 2, no. 3, pp.39-65, 2015...

English Language Teaching

Vol. 2, No. 3, pp.39-65, 2015

Analyzing Cognitive Processes and Multiple Intelligences

in the Top-Notch Textbooks

Ali Roohani*

Assistant Professor of TEFL, Shahrekord University, Iran

Abstract

This study aimed to analyze the Top-Notch series (Fundamentals, Top-Notch 1,

Top-Notch 2, Top-Notch 3, Summit 1, and Summit 2) to find out the extent to

which these ELT textbooks could represent the six cognitive processes (i.e.,

remembering, understanding, applying, analyzing, evaluating, and creating), as

well as multiple intelligences (i.e., verbal, logical, spatial, bodily, musical,

interpersonal, intrapersonal, naturalist, and existential) drawing on revised

Bloom's taxonomy (BRT) and multiple intelligence (MI) frameworks. To this

end, content analysis was done to obtain the frequencies and percentages of

various cognitive processes, ranging from lower- to higher-order levels, and

nine intelligences. Results showed that remembering and evaluating processes

received the highest and the least percentages of cognitive processes in all the

six textbooks; applying, understanding, creating, and analyzing came in

between. Moreover, the higher-order processes (i.e., analyzing, evaluating, and

creating) were less frequently represented in the Top-Notch textbooks than

lower-order ones (i.e., remembering, understanding, and applying).

Furthermore, verbal and existential intelligences received the highest and the

least percentages of multiple intelligences in Top-Notch series. The results

imply that there is a need to improve the Top-Notch textbooks in terms of

higher-order cognitive processes and provide ground to develop various types of

intelligences.

Keywords: Cognitive Processes; Multiple Intelligences; Top-Notch

Textbooks

1. Introduction

* Assistant Professor of TEFL, Shahrekord University, Iran -Received on:19/09/2015 Accepted on:19/09/2015

Email: [email protected]

40 Analyzing Cognitive Processes and Multiple

According to Tomlinson (2003), materials are considered anything which

is used to help language learning. Among teaching materials, textbooks

play an important role in the realm of language education (Richards,

2001), and, following the teacher variable, they are considered as the

second important factor in language classrooms (Riasati & Zare, 2010);

language learners can rely on them as a self-study source and they can be

useful tool in the hands of the language teachers, especially the novice

teachers (Wen-Cheng, Chien-Hung, & Chung-Chieh, 2011). Textbooks

are “an important means of satisfying the range of needs that emerge

from the classroom and its wider context” (Hutchinson & Torres, 1994,

p.327). Second/foreign language (L2) textbook is “an almost universal

element of [language] teaching” (Hutchinson & Torres, 1994, p.315).

They represent the visible heart of any English language teaching (ELT)

program (Sheldon, 1988) and can reflect trends in ELT, learners‟ diverse

intelligences, or the pedagogic, psychological, and linguistic preferences

and biases of their authors (Allwright, 1982); they can display

(in)consistencies between „educational aspects‟ and „commercial roles‟

(Graves, 2000). Therefore, it is so important for us to know not only how

to use L2 textbooks, including ELT textbooks, but also how effective

they can be (Sheldon, 1988).

L2 textbook selection is not an easy task for the teacher. As White

(1997) states, “the selection of a textbook is one of the most important

decisions a teacher will make in shaping the content and nature of

teaching and learning” (p. 2); it sometimes requires that the teacher fully

considers learners‟ needs and styles, gathering information on the levels

of their cognitive learning and thinking processes and intelligences,

identifying how strength or weak learners are in each intelligence, and

making serious attempts to minimize their weaknesses in any specific

intelligence to bring about motivation in learners. Perhaps, one way to

know which L2 textbooks are effective and establish pedagogical values

to make a right choice for adopting a textbook for our L2 teaching is

through textbook analysis and evaluation. Textbook evaluation is a

method that includes measuring the value of a set of learning materials,

and making judgments about the impact of the materials on the

individuals utilizing them (Tomlinson, 2003). Also, as Genesee (2001)

states, “evaluation enables us to make informed decisions through which

student achievement will increase and educational programs will be more

successful” (p. 150). In this light, it is logical to evaluate ELT textbooks

in terms of levels of cognitive processes which can engage L2 learners in

thinking skills, and the types of intelligences (e.g., verbal, logical,

interpersonal, and so on) they tend to foster.

English Language Teaching, Vol. 2, No. 3, 2015 41

The revised Bloom's taxonomy (RBT) is a useful instrument for

textbook evaluation and analysis of the cognitive processes in ELT

textbooks. As Huitt (2011) states, the significant principle of the

taxonomy is that educators‟ requirement of learners‟ knowledge can be

organized in a hierarchy from less to more complex cognitive processes

(i.e., remembering, understanding, applying, analyzing, evaluating, and

creating). The RBT can be a good choice to assess the basic skills and

aligning language teaching materials and learning activities with the

cognitive thinking processes. It is a practical tool for course evaluation

(Marzano & Kendall, 2007) and assists L2 teachers form alignment

between evaluation and course objectives (Krathwohl, 2002).

In addition to the RBT, another tool which is useful for analysis

of ELT textbooks is drawing on multiple intelligences (MI) theory. “MI

theory focuses on the individuality of the learners and their different

capabilities. It helps students learn the way they are more skilled at”

(Razmjo & Jozaghi, 2010, p. 60). As Stefanakis (2002) asserts, every

individual has several intelligences and, to make the instruction more

effective; it is the instructor should use the abilities of the individual from

the very beginning through activities in instructional textbooks.

According to Armstrong (2009), MI theory can influence language

learners‟ behavior in the classroom simply by creating an environment

where learners‟ needs are recognized and attended to throughout the

school day. Thus, it is potentially worth shedding light on the

contribution of MI theory in evaluating the suitability of an ELT textbook

for a specific situation.

L2 textbooks are psychologically essential for L2 learners since

their language progress and achievement can be measured when we use

textbooks (Haycraft, 1998). In sum, the analysis of L2 textbooks requires

close examination of texts, exercises, and activities in terms of the level

of cognitive processes which a textbook offers to learners and give

insights into cognitive levels. Besides, to actively engage learners in L2

learning, we should consider the multiple ways learners can learn the

target language through L2 textbooks and taping into a variety of

multiple intelligences as a way of increasing learners‟ participation.

Therefore, this study is intended to analyze the Top-Notch series, which

is commonly used in the language schools and institutes, to see the extent

to which this ELT textbook series can engage cognitive processes and

intelligences through the activities provided in them. The results may call

a need to supplement these ELT textbooks to best enhance all the


intelligences and cognitive processes. They may also help EFL teachers

choose textbooks that are suitable for their learners in applying MI theory

and RBT to their teaching.

2. Literature Review

2.1. Bloom’s Taxonomy

Bloom (1956) challenged teachers to categorize their current curriculum

focused on cognitive processes in order to implicate missing parts when

they were creating a curriculum. Bloom also declared that by “comparing

the goals of their present curriculum with the range of possible outcomes

[this comparison] may suggest additional goals they may wish to

include” (p. 2). He developed taxonomy of educational objectives in

terms of six-level description of thinking, which has been widely adapted

and used in variants contexts ever since. Bloom initially stated that the

cognitive domain revolves around knowledge, comprehension,

application, analysis, synthesis, and evaluation. Emphasizing higher-level

thinking and a movement to standards-based curriculum, Anderson

(2000), a former student of Bloom, led a new group and changed the

order of objectives. Anderson and Krathwohl (2001), and Krathwohl

(2002) later updated the taxonomy and called it the revised Bloom's

taxonomy (RBT) which consisted of remembering, understanding,

applying, analyzing, evaluation, and creating. As Hanna (2007) states,

they defined cognition as thinking (an active process), used verbs

(instead of nouns) to describe the action involved in thinking (see Figure

1 which displays the difference between old and new versions of Bloom's

taxonomy).

According to Anderson and Krathwohl (2001, pp. 67-68), the

cognitive processes of the RBT are ordered from simple remembering to

higher-order critical and creative thinking processes:

Remembering: retrieve relevant knowledge from long-term

memory.

Understanding: construct meaning from instructional messages,

including oral, written, and graphic communication long-term

memory.

Applying: carry out or use a procedure in a given situation.

Analyzing: Break materials into parts and determine how the

parts relate.

Evaluating: Make judgments based on criteria and standards.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cognitive_domain&action=edit&redlink=1


Creating: Put elements together to form a coherent or functional

whole.

Old version New version

Figure 1. The old and new versions of Bloom's taxonomy.

2.2. MI Theory

Binet's and Simon's IQ test in 1904, which was intended to identify

learners' remedial attention, was the primarily incentive of Gardner

(1983) to develop the theory of multiple intelligences. IQ tests were

deemed appropriate measurement instruments for achievement and

success predictions for about a hundred years (Gardner, 1999). Gardner

(1983), however, criticized this view of single static intelligence and

introduced his alternative theory called multiple intelligences. Gardner

(1983) took the advantages of previous research on biological sciences,

developmental psychology, logical analysis and traditional psychological

research to introduce seven intelligences:

Verbal/linguistic intelligence refers to the degree of efficiency

of the language used by an individual.

Logical/Mathematical intelligence refers to the degree of

efficiency of reasoning and using numbers.


Spatial/visual intelligence refers to individuals‟ abilities to

visualize and judge shapes, colors, etc through mental or

graphical capacities.

Bodily/kinesthetic intelligence refers to the individuals‟ using

of body movements and gestures to convey meaning or with

the aim of problem solving.

Musical intelligence refers to the capacity of an individual to

use music in order to let out feelings.

Interpersonal intelligence refers to the individual‟s ability to

take part in interactive situations and participate in the

negotiation of meaning.

Intrapersonal intelligences refer to the individual‟s ability to

understand him/her.

Later, Gardner (1999) introduced two other intelligences, called

naturalist and existential. Naturalist intelligence is “the ability to make

use of nature and develop classifications of natural phenomena and

species with the aim of understanding nature” (Gardner, 1999, p. 33). As

for existential intelligence, Gardner (1999) asserted it is:

The capacity to locate oneself with respect to the furthest reaches

of the cosmos … and the related capacity to locate oneself with

respect to such existential features of the human condition as the

significance of life … and such profound experiences as love of

another person or total immersion in a work of art. (p. 60)

Evaluating ELT materials has been a concern of some researchers

in the field of L2 learning. The review of literate on textbook evaluation

shows that most of the studies are concerned with the overall suitability

or suitability of L2 textbooks with respect to the language components

and skill. For instance, Hamiloğlu and Karlıova (2009) analyzed the five

selected ELT textbooks, Countdown to First Certificate, Advanced

Master class, Grammar in Context 2, New Headway Advanced, and Top-

Notch 2, in terms of vocabulary selection and teaching techniques in the

textbooks. In another study, Jahangard (2007) tried to evaluate four EFL

textbooks, which were used in Iranian senior high schools by the

Ministry of Education, based on 13 overall criteria which were extracted

from various evaluation checklists. Likewise, Riasati and Zare (2010)

evaluated New Interchange textbooks to determine overall suitability of

these textbooks through Litz‟s (2005) questionnaire.


Other studies have focused on the significance of visual elements

and literacy in ELT (e.g., Roohani & Zarei, 2013), gender or the status of

sexism (e.g., Ansary & Babaii, 2003), culture (e.g., Tajeddin &

Teimournezhad, 2014), and racism (Lee, 2009), among others. The

review shows that there are studies which have applied Bloom's

taxonomy and MI approach to evaluate the ELT textbooks; however,

such studies are comparatively quite small in number. For instance,

Razmjoo and Kazempourfard (2012) conducted a study to analyze

Interchange textbooks based on the RBT framework. They wanted to

find out to what extent Interchange textbooks were consistent with the

taxonomy. After collecting data, Razmjoo and Kazempourfard revealed

that the lower-order processes of the RBT were the most prevalent

learning processes in these textbooks. Also, Roohani, Taheri, and

Poorzanganeh (2014) analyzed Four Corners in the light of the RBT to

see to what extent these textbooks cover the cognitive processes of the

RBT. They found that remembering process was the most frequent level

and creating process was the least frequent level.

As for studies on evaluating the ELT textbooks based on MI

theory, Rezvani and Amiri (2012) were interested in discovering to what

extent eight English textbooks, published by SAMT, covered MI theory.

The evaluation indicated that textbook activities generally involved four

intelligences: verbal, intrapersonal, logical, and spatial intelligences;

moreover, these textbooks were not responsive to the diversity of

intelligences. Moreover, using Botelho's (2003) checklist, Taase (2012)

worked on ELT textbooks used in guidance school of Iranian education

to see to what extent MI theory had been met. He found that verbal and

visual intelligences were the most predominant ones; he did not find any

activity which promoted bodily, musical, and naturalistic intelligences.

All in all, the above textbook studies highlight some pedagogical

and academic perspectives toward L2 (including EFL) learning through

the analysis done on the L2 textbooks. But, there is still more needs for

evaluating ELT textbooks used in academic courses and language

programs in terms of cognitive processes of the RBT and MI theory,

particularly in the context where English is used as a foreign language.

Also, the close examination of the review literature indicates that many

L2 textbooks cannot satisfy learners‟ needs and personal abilities. Given

the effectiveness of Bloom's taxonomy and contribution of MI theory,

this study seeks to find out which processes of the RBT and individual

intelligences are more prevalent or dominant in the Top-Notch series.


This way, it examines the extent to which these ELT textbooks reflect the

cognitive processes of the RBT as well as multiple intelligences (i.e.,

intelligence diversity in these textbooks). Additionally, it examines these

ELT textbooks in terms of the lower-order (i.e., remembering,

understanding, and applying) and higher-order (i.e., analyzing,

evaluating, and creating) cognitive processes. Accordingly, following

research questions have been developed:

1. Which processes of the RBT are prevalent in the Top-Notch

series?

2. How are Top-Notch series evaluated in terms of lower-order

and higher-order cognitive processes?

3. Which individual intelligences are predominant in the Top-

Notch series?

3. Methodology

3.1. Materials

For the purposes of this study, Top-Notch series (Saslow & Ascher,

2012), which was commonly used in many English language institutes,

was selected. According to Saslow and Ascher (2012), Top-Notch series

is designed for a six-level communicative course. Six textbooks selected

for the purpose of the present study include: Fundamentals (Saslow &

Ascher, 2012a), Top-Notch 1 (Saslow & Ascher, 2012b), Top-Notch 2

(Saslow & Ascher, 2012c), Top-Notch 3 (Saslow & Ascher, 2012d),

Summit 1 (Saslow & Ascher, 2012e), and Summit 2 (Saslow & Ascher,

2012f). Each textbook consists of 10 units, except for Fundamentals

which contains 14 units. Half of the units are covered in section A and

the other half in section B. Each unit is covered in four sessions and

made up of four two-page lessons, a Preview section (except for

Fundamentals), and a Review section, in which every two-page lesson is

designed for one class session. Each lesson provides vocabulary,

grammar, and social language contextualized in all four skills.

3.2. Procedure

In order to collect data, the content analysis was done in the qualitative

and quantitative manners. To do so, five units of each Top-Notch

textbook were first randomly selected to find out the dominant cognitive

process(s) and intelligence(s) and the extent to which cognitive processes

of the RBT and MI were covered. The units randomly selected were 2, 4,


6, 8, 12 from Fundamentals; 1, 3, 5, 7, 9 from Top-Notch 1; 1, 3, 5, 6, 8

from Top-Notch 2; 1, 3, 7, 8, 10 from Top-Notch 3; 3, 5, 6, 8, 9 from

Summit 1; and 2, 4, 6, 8, 10 from Summit 2. It was assumed that selecting

five units from each textbook could represent the profile of cognitive

processes and MI for the whole textbook; the reason was that the

structure of the units was the same and types of activities were similar in

other units.

Second, the content analysis of Top-Notch textbooks activities

was done based on the RBT by three raters. The revised Bloom's

definitions of different processes of the cognitive domain were carefully

studied and key-word examples were taken out. As very briefly shown in

Appendix A, the framework represents the six processes of the cognitive

domain from the simple recalling or recognizing of facts (as the lowest

process) through increasingly more complex and abstract mental

processes of evaluating and creating. The frequency and percentage of

each process were counted through the randomly-selected units in each

textbook by the three raters.

Third, regarding MI theory, the content analysis of Top-Notch

series activities was also done by using Botelho's (2003) checklist, which

was developed based upon definitions of intelligences (see Appendix B

for a summary of the checklist). The raters analyzed each activity of the

randomly-selected units to count the frequency and percentage of each of

nine intelligences.

Meanwhile, in order to ensure that the content analysis was

reliable, a training session was held in which the RBT and MI

frameworks were discussed by the raters. Also, they analyzed one

complete unit of Top-Notch 1 in terms of the above mentioned

frameworks. Also, current researcher employed inter-rater and intra-rater

reliability. Inter-rater reliability was obtained; the agreement coefficient

was found to be high (above .95). Regarding to ensuring intra-rater

reliability, the raters did the content analysis twice with a three-week

time interval; the degree of consistency in the two analysis attempts was

found to be high (above .95).

3.3. Sample Activities

To better understand data analysis procedures, two sample activities,

along with some explanation for analyzing the activities in the light of

the RBT and MI frameworks, are presented below. Figure 2 shows one

sample activity which caters basically for lower-order cognitive

processes.


Figure 2. A sample shot of review activity.

(taken from Top-Notch 3 B, p. 84)

The review activity displayed in Figure 2 addresses several skills

and involves several cognitive processes. The first part (part A) is tagged

as listening comprehension, which contains two practices: learners

should listen to a conversation and circle names events, and then check

the statement as true or false. Based on the descriptions of the RBT, these

types of activities include comprehension (i.e., the understanding

process); they engage learners in understanding the audio and answering

questions. According to Bloom (1956), by means of understanding

process, learners can demonstrate understanding of facts and ideas by

organizing, comparing, translating, interpreting, giving descriptions, and

stating the main ideas; translation, interpretation, and extrapolation

belong to comprehension (i.e., understanding).

In the subsequent parts (Parts B and C), learners are supposed to

apply their previous knowledge in order to answer the questions, which

triggers the third category of the cognitive processes, that is, applying

process. According to Bloom (1956), applying level enables learners to


apply new knowledge and solve problems in new situations by applying

acquired knowledge, facts, techniques and rules in a different way.

Additionally, learners should write the names of holidays they know in

their own country. In other words, they should recall the names of

holidays i.e., knowledge of specific terminology and conventions.

Therefore, the remembering process of the cognitive domain is also

involved. Bloom (1956) states that learners can show the memory of

previously learned materials by recalling facts, terms, basic concepts, and

answers (e.g., knowledge of specific terminology, specific facts,

knowledge of ways and means of dealing with conventions, trends and

sequences, classifications and categories, criteria, methodology, and

knowledge of the universals and abstractions in a field).

Figure 3 demonstrates one sample activity which basically caters

for verbal intelligence.

Figure 3. A sample shot of vocabulary activity.

(taken from Fundamentals A, p. 30)

The activity displayed in Figure 3 requires L2 learners to listen to

an audio and repeat new vocabulary while looking at the pictures. The

learners use their verbal intelligence to describe the people. The general

goal of vocabulary activity is to boost vocabulary knowledge of learners

and develop listening skill. This activity which invites EFL learners to

increase linguistic knowledge is said to engage verbal intelligence, that

is, the efficiency of the language used by an individual (Gardner, 1983).

As Bottelho (2003) states, verbal intelligence is involved when learners

practice listening and speaking. In addition, this activity invites L2

learners to listen to the audio along with their pictures. They can use their

ability to visualize and judge illustrations. They may, thus, use their

spatial intelligence to identify the people.


4. Results

To address the first research question of the study, the frequencies and

percentages of the processes of the RBT were calculated in

Fundamentals, Top-Notch 1, Top-Notch 2, Top-Notch 3, Summit 1, and

Summit 2. The results are summarized in Table 1.

Table 1. Frequencies and Percentages of the RBT in the Top-Notch

Series

Cognitive

Processes

Fu

nda

men

tals

To

p-N

otch

1

To

p-N

otch

2

To

p-N

otch

3

Su

mm

it 1

Su

mm

it 2

N % N % N % N % N % N %

Remembering 94 47.00 113 35.7

6 94 32.75 88 30.35 69

25.0

9 66

25.1

9

Understanding 26 13.00 67 21.2

0 47 16.37 68 23.45 48

17.4

5 44

16.8

0

Applying 61 30.50 69 21.8

3 51 17.77 45 15.51 52

18.9

1 49

18.7

0

Analyzing 7 3.50 17 5.38 43 15.00 27 9.31 27 9.82 29 11.0

7

Evaluating 5 2.50 22 6.97 17 5.92 20 6.90 33 12.0

0 31

11.8

3

Creating 7 3.50 28 8.86 35 12.19 42 14.48 46 16.7

3 43

16.4

1

Total 20

0 100 316 100

28

7 100

29

0 100

27

5 100

26

2 100

According to Table 1, remembering process was found to be the

most frequent level of the cognitive processes of the RBT in

Fundamentals (N = 94, 47% ), Top-Notch 1 (N = 113, 35.76% ), Top-

Notch 2 (N = 94, 32.75%), Top-Notch 3 (N = 88, 30.35%), Summit 1 (N

= 69, 25.09%), and Summit 2 (N = 66, 25.19%). Evaluating process was

found to be the least frequent level of the cognitive processes of the RBT

in Fundamentals (N = 5, 2.5%), Top-Notch 2 (N = 17, 5.92%), and Top-

Notch 3 (N = 20, 6.90%). Moreover, Analyzing process was found to be

the least frequent level of the cognitive processes of the RBT in Top-

Notch 1 (N = 17, 5.38%), Summit 1 (N = 27, 9.82%), and Summit 2 (N =

29, 11.07%).

The second most frequent level, however, was not the same in all

the six textbooks. While understanding process was the second frequent

cognitive level in Top-Notch 3, in Fundamentals, Top-Notch 1, Top-


Notch 2, Summit 1, and Summit 2, applying process was found to be the

second most represented level of the cognitive processes of the RBT.

In order to compare cognitive processes of the RBT represented

in the Top-Notch series, the average percentage of each process contained

and displayed in Figure 4.

Remembering

32%

Understanding

18%

Applying21%

Analyzing9%

Evaluating8%

Creating12%

Figure 4. Pie apple graph of percentages of six cognitive processes in the

Top-Notch series.

According to Figure 2, the average percentage of remembering

process was 32%, constituting a high proportion representative of the

lower-order levels. Evaluating process was found to be the least frequent

process with 8% of distribution. In between, there were, applying (21%),

understanding (18%), creating (9%), and analyzing (12%) processes.

To address the second research question of the study, the

frequencies and percentages of the cognitive processes related to the

activities representative of the lower-order and higher-order processes

were obtained (see Table 2).

As shown in Table 2, Fundamentals was to a high degree

representative of the lower-order processes (N = 181, 90.5%), and

Summit 2 had the least representation of the lower-order processes (N =

159, 60.69%). In addition, as for higher-order processes, Summit 2 had

the largest representation (N = 103, 39.31%), and Fundamentals had the

least representation (N = 19, 9.5%).


Table 2.

Frequencies and Percentages of Lower-Order and Higher-Order

Cognitive Processes in the Top-Notch Series

Cogniti

ve

Process

es

Fu

nd

am

enta

ls

To

p-N

otch

1

To

p-N

otch

2

To

p-N

otch

3

Su

mm

it 1

Su

mm

it 2

N % N % N % N % N % N %

Lower-

order 181 90.5

24

9

78.7

9

19

2

66.8

9

20

1

69.3

1

16

9

61.4

5

15

9

60.6

9

Higher-

order 19 9.5 67

21.2

1 95

33.1

1 89

30.6

9

10

6

38.5

5

10

3

39.3

1

To test the significance of the difference in the frequency of

lower-order and higher-order processes in all the six textbooks, Chi-

Square test of significance was carried out. The result of Chi-Square test

depicted that there was a significant difference between the frequencies

of the lower-order and higher-order cognitive processes (χ2 = 74.02, df =

5, * p < .05). Table 3 reports the results of Chi-Square test on the

frequencies of the lower-order and higher-order processes in each of the

textbooks. According to Table 3, in each textbook of Top-Notch series,

there was a significant difference between the frequencies of the lower-

order and higher-order cognitive processes (*p < .05), too.

Table 3. Chi-Square Test for the Lower-Order and Higher-Order

Cognitive Processes

Chi-Square

value df p

Fundamentals 129.6 1 .000

Top-Notch 1 103.68 1 .000

Top-Notch 2 32.12 1 .000

Top-Notch 3 42.48 1 .000

Summit 1 13.98 1 .000

Summit 2 11.54 1 .000

To address the third research question of the study, the

frequencies and percentages of different intelligences were calculated in


Fundamentals, Top-Notch 1, Top-Notch 2, Top-Notch 3, Summit 1, and

Summit 2. The results are summarized in Table 1.

Table 4.

Frequencies and Percentages of the MI Profiles in the Top-Notch

Textbooks

MI Profiles

Fu

nda

men

tals

Top

-No

tch

1

Top

-No

tch

2

Top

-No

tch

3

Su

mm

it 1

Su

mm

it 2

N % N % N % N % N % N %

Verbal 167 38.93 171 34.13 177 33.02 199 36.92 179 36.00 173 37.44

Logical 42 9.79 74 14.77 83 15.48 73 13.54 95 19.06 101 21.86

Spatial 78 18.18 84 16.76 52 9.70 54 10.02 34 6.82 29 6.28

Bodily 16 3.73 28 5.58 41 7.65 21 3.90 11 2.20 8 1.73

Musical 61 14.28 63 12.57 56 10.45 64 11.88 41 8.23 54 11.69

Interpersonal 51 11.89 46 9.18 54 10.08 55 10.20 53 10.64 38 8.23

Intrapersonal 14 3.26 27 5.39 58 10.82 58 10.76 74 14.85 47 10.17

Naturalist 0 0.00 8 1.59 12 2.24 15 2.78 11 2.20 12 2.60

Existential 0 0.00 0 0.00 3 0.56 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00

Total 429 100 501 100 536 100 539 100 498 100 462 100

As can been seen from Table 4, verbal intelligence was the most

frequent intelligence in Fundamentals (N = 167, 38.93%), Top-Notch 1

(N = 171, 34.13%), Top-Notch 2 (N = 177, 33.02%), Top-Notch 3 (N =

199, 36.92%), Summit 1 (N = 179, 36%), and Summit 2 (N = 173,

37.44%). But, naturalist and existential intelligences were the least

frequent intelligences (N = 0,%,) in Fundamentals, and existential

intelligence was the least frequent intelligence in Top-Notch 1, Top-

Notch 3, Summit 1, Summit 2 (N = 0%), and Top-Notch 2 (N = 30.56%).

In order to provide a better picture to compare the representation

of intelligences in Top-Notch series, the average percentage of each

intelligence was displayed in Figure 4.

As Figure 4 reports, verbal intelligence received the highest

percentage of intelligences in all six textbooks (36%), and existential

intelligence was almost absent in all six textbooks. Logical, musical,

spatial, interpersonal, intrapersonal, bodily, and naturalist intelligences

came in between (with 16%, 12%, 11%, 10%, 9%, 4%, and 2%,

respectively).


Verbal36%

Logical16%

Spatial11%

Bodily4%

Musical12%

Interpersonal

10%

Intrapersonal9%

Naturalist2%

Existential0%

Figure 4. Pie apple graph of percentages of nine intelligences in the Top-

Notch series.

5. Discussion

One major finding of this study is that remembering process was found to

be the most frequent level of the cognitive processes in all six textbooks

of Top-Notch series. Activities which included remembering process in

Top-Notch series were, for example, conversational model, vocabulary

activities, and reading activities. Also, learners were supposed to do

activities such as listening to an audio to practice pronunciation examples

or to memorize some sorts of information. One plausible reason for this

major finding may be due to the importance of remembering process as

the basic level of cognitive processes of the RBT in the ELT textbooks.

This may be justified by Bloom‟s (1956) claim about the importance of

knowledge. Bloom (1956) believes that knowledge is one of the most

important learning objectives because once a person‟s knowledge or

information increases; there is also “a development of his acquaintance

with reality” (p. 32). In addition, knowledge, in Krathwohl's (2002)

terms, is regarded as a basis for the other purposes of education such as

understanding the environment, applying recently acquired information

in new situation, and critically thinking about issues. Marzano and

Kendall (2007) believe that critical thinking or problem solving, as

higher-order levels of cognitive processes, must be based upon

knowledge of our realities, that is, what we remember. According to

Anderson and Krathwohl (2001), remembering process must basically be

developed and practiced so that other levels of learning objectives can be


achieved by classroom learners and teachers. Thus, it could be asserted

that developers or writers of Top-Notch series were aware of basic levels

of learning objectives and their key roles in L2 learning.

Almost, the same results were found in other studies on ELT

textbook evaluation. For example, Roohani et al. (2014) found that

remembering process was the most frequent process in Four Corners,

Book 2 and book 3 (Richards & Bohlke, 2012). Moreover, Riazi and

Mosalanejad (2010) analyzed Iranian high school and pre-university ELT

textbooks in terms of Bloom's taxonomy representation and concluded

the same results that is to say; knowledge process (i.e., remembering

process) was the most frequent process.

In the present study, evaluating and analyzing processes were the

least frequently-represented levels of cognitive processes. There can be

several reasons for this major finding. For instance, one plausible reason

is that in the most ELT curricula, the most common, and perhaps, the

most general educational objectives are related to knowledge and

remembering level and this can be reflected in textbooks including ELT

ones such the ones used in the current study. The Top-Notch series, in

general, focus less on doing problem-solving tasks; in most activities,

students‟ attainment is mostly measured thorough recalling and

remembering the facts or given materials and less assessment is done

through their abilities to do problem-solving tasks. The other reason

might be related to the difficulty on the parts of the textbook writers to

develop activities to access higher levels of intellectual development. It is

easier for an L2 textbook writer to include a lower number of activities

including analyzing and evaluating processes.

However, the importance of analyzing and evaluating processes

have been accentuated by Paul (1985) who believes that analysis (i.e.,

analyzing) and evaluation (i.e., evaluating) are essential to education at

all levels. To learn how to think critically, in this view, is to learn how to

ask and answer questions of analysis, and evaluation. According to

Mayer (2002), the goal of many fields of study is to “improve learners‟

skills in analyzing educational communications” (p. 230). Moreover,

Bloom (1956) has discussed the importance of analysis (i.e., analyzing)

process:

Skill in analysis may be found as an objective of any field of

study. It is frequently expressed as one of their important

objectives by teachers of science, social studies … They wish, for

example, to develop in learners the ability to distinguish fact from

hypothesis in a communication, … to distinguish relevant from


extraneous material, to note how one idea relates to another, … to

distinguish dominant from subordinate ideas. (p. 144)

Moreover, in every one of the six textbooks of Top-Notch series,

lower-order cognitive processes (i.e. remembering, understanding, and

applying) were discovered to be more frequent than higher-order ones.

This finding may be unjustified by many researchers. For example,

McGregor (1994) believes that by higher-order cognitive processes of the

RBT, one can go beyond the information given, adopt a critical stance,

evaluate, and have meta-cognitive awareness and problem solving

capacities. According to Thomas and Thorne (2009), higher-order

cognitive process is thinking on a level that is higher than memorizing

facts or telling something back to someone exactly the way it was told to

you. They require learners to do something with the facts, understand

them, infer from them, connect them to other facts and concepts,

categorize them, manipulate them, put them together in new or novel

ways, and apply them as we seek new solutions to new problems.

Among all six textbooks of Top-Notch series, Summit 2, the

textbook for proficient learners, mostly catered for higher-order cognitive

processes. In fact, the percentage of higher-order cognitive processes

increased from 9.5% in Fundamentals, which is written for beginner

learners, to 41.61% in Summit 2. Such a result is expected on the grounds

that learners with larger amount of language proficiency must be able to

perform more difficult cognitive activities of analyzing, evaluating and

creating. In other words, it is natural to expect more basic cognitive

levels and lower-order thinking processes for those at the lower levels of

English proficiency before do problem-solving language activities and

get involved in more complex thinking processes in the next higher level.

All in all, higher-order thinking processes, in Mabrouk's (2010) terms,

promote learners to be independent in learning by making them to be

curious in learning processes. Moreover, Rashid and Hashim (2008) have

reported a positive relationship between language proficiency and higher-

order thinking processes. These textbooks, however, could have

benefited more from the higher-order levels of learning, especially in an

era in which critical thinking is of such a great importance.

By and large, the above finding finds support the results of the

majority of the previous studies. For instance, Roohani et al. (2014)

concluded that lower-order cognitive processes were more dominant than

higher-order ones in Four Corners textbooks. Moreover, Mosallanejad

(2008) came to such a finding and found that lower levels of cognitive

skills were more frequent in Iranian senior high school and pre-university

English textbooks. Also, Gordani (2008) found that lower-order


cognitive skills were more prevalent than higher order ones in guidance

school English textbooks.

As for MI theory results, the activities in the Top-Notch series

were mainly representative of the verbal intelligence followed by the

logical one. It can be argued that fostering verbal intelligence is of utmost

importance for ELT textbook writers; As Gardner (1993) state, people

who have verbal intelligence find it easy to read, pick up new

vocabulary, understand more complex language, and express themselves

in speaking and writing. They would be able to make ideas clearer for

other people through their writing and verbal explanations. It is justified

that an L2 textbook to include some activities catering for verbal

intelligence type; L2 textbooks can comprise language skills like reading,

writing, speaking and listening, as well as language areas such as

grammar, pronunciation and vocabulary. Also, given that the dominant

intelligences were verbal and logical types, the possibility exists that that

the ELT textbook authors focused more on the traditional view of

intelligence and, perhaps, view of language learning. The above finding

is in line with previous research; Bottelho (2003) also found that verbal

intelligence was the most dominant intelligence in New Interchange

textbooks (Richards, Hull, & Proctor, 2005).

Bodily, naturalist, and existential intelligences were given little

attention, compared with other intelligences. One possibility is that it is

generally thought that the ability to use skillfully one‟s body for the

expression of ideas and feelings (bodily), one‟s ability of communicating

with other creatures and classifying individuals and ecological

relationships (naturalist), and ones‟ ability to understand ultimate and

philosophical issues (existential) have less to do with language learning,

in general, and L2 learning, in particular; hence, they were represented

for comparatively less than other types in the aforementioned textbooks.

Nonetheless, some scholars have stressed the significance of affective

and physical sides of learners in L2 learning. For instance, Hannaford

(1995) has argued for the relationship between body movement and

better L2 performance. Also, Roohani and Heidari (2013) have

accentuated the potentials of bodily intelligence in the use of strategies in

oral communication. Thus, a higher representation of the above-

mentioned intelligences, especially bodily/kinesthetic intelligence, in

these ELT textbooks could have been expected.

6. Conclusion and Suggestions

This study investigated the extent to which Top-Notch series

demonstrated six cognitive categories of the BRT (i.e. remembering,


understanding, applying, analyzing, evaluating, and creating) in their

activities. The findings have revealed the high representation of the

process of remembering and a low frequency of the evaluation process in

the Top-Notch textbooks. This finding indicates that more evaluative

activities and tasks should be provided to the EFL learners so that the

learners will have the opportunity to express their opinions, feelings, and

attitudes which pave the way for them to be creative and innovative

thinkers. Also, Top-Notch textbooks are mostly limited to lower-order

levels of cognitive processes of the RBT and representation of two

intelligences i.e., verbal and logical. More particularly, much against

expectation, higher-order levels of the RBT are less frequently

represented in the advanced level of Top-Notch series; since textbooks

are one of the richest educational means through which critical thinking

should be expanded, by implication, these ELT textbooks should benefit

from higher levels of learning, i.e. analyzing, evaluating and creating

through adapting some of the activities to include more higher-order

thinking skills (such as using contextual clues and guessing meaning of

words, evaluating texts critically, recognizing authors‟ position and bias,

distinguishing between facts and opinions, and understanding authors‟

attitude).

The Top-Notch series was, to a high degree, representative of the

verbal, and to some degree, logical, and musical intelligences. This could

be regarded as a promising point for some EFL learners. However, the

greater parts of these textbooks fail to offer the innovativeness in

planning multiple activities and exercises to foster other types of

intelligences, which may mean less satisfaction for some EFL learners. It

seems reasonable to suggest that L2 teachers supplement these ELT

textbooks with extra materials or activities to celebrate diversity. Using

charts, graphs, and diagrams, video clips, power point slides, movies,

visual puzzles, imaginative storytelling, idea sketching, visual thinking

exercises, mind mapping, and color cueing can be greatly helpful.

References

Allwright, R.L. (1982). Perceiving and pursuing learners' needs. In M.

Geddes & G. Sturtridge (Eds.). Individualisation (pp. 24-31).

London: Modern English Publications.

Anderson, L., & Krathwohl, D. A. (2001). Taxonomy for learning,

teaching and assessing: A revision of Bloom's taxonomy of

educational objectives. New York: Longman.


Ansary, H., & Babaii, E. (2002). Universal characteristics of EFL⁄ESL

textbooks: A step towards systematic textbook evaluation. TESL

Journal, 8(2), 1-8.

Armstrong, T. (2009). Multiple intelligences in the classroom.

Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Bloom, B. S. (Ed.). (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives

handbook: Cognitive domain. New York: McKay.

Botelho, M. (2003). Multiple intelligences theory in English language

teaching: An analysis of current textbooks, materials, and

teachers' perceptions. Unpublished master's thesis. University of

Ohio, Ohio, the U.S.

Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences.

New York: Basic Books.

Gardner, H. (1999). Intelligence reframed: Multiple intelligences for the

21st Century. New York: Basic Books.

Genesee, F. (2001). Evaluation. In R. Carter, & D. Nunan (Eds.), The

Cambridge guide to teaching English to speakers of other

languages (pp. 144-150). Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press.

Gordani, Y. (2008). A content analysis of guidance school English

textbooks with regard to Bloom's levels of learning. Unpublished

master‟s thesis, Shiraz University, Iran.

Gotcher, D. (2012). A précis of the taxonomy. Retrieved Octobor 8, 2014,

from http://authorityresearch.com/2010-

01%20A%20precis%20of%20Blooms%20Taxonomy.html

Graves, K. (2000). Designing language courses. Canada. New bury

House.

Hamiloğlu, K., & Karlıova, H. (2009). A content analysis on the

vocabulary presentation in EFL course books. Ozean Journal of

social science, 2(1), 43-54.

Hanna, W. (2007). The new Bloom‟s taxonomy: Implications for music

education. Arts Education Policy Review, 108(4), 7-16.

Hannaford, C. (1995). Smart moves: Why learning is not all in your

head. Arlington, VA: Great Ocean Publishers.

Haycraft, J. (1998). An introduction to English language teaching.

London: Longman.

Huitt, W. (2011). Bloom et al.’s taxonomy of the cognitive domain:

Educational psychology interactive. Valdosta, GA: Valdosta State

University.

Hutchinson, T., & Torres, E. (1994). The textbook as agent of change.

ELT Journal, 48(4), 315-328.

http://authorityresearch.com/2010-01%20A%20precis%20of%20Blooms%20Taxonomy.html

http://authorityresearch.com/2010-01%20A%20precis%20of%20Blooms%20Taxonomy.html


Jahangard, A. (2007). Evaluation of EFL materials taught at Iranian

public high schools. Asian EFL Journal, 9(2), 130-150.

Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom's taxonomy: An overview.

Theory into Practice, 41(4), 212-218.

Lee, I. (2009). Situated globalization and racism: An analysis of Korean

high school EFL textbooks language and literacy. English

Teaching: Practice and Critique, 11(1), 1-14.

Litz, D. R. (2005). Textbook evaluation and ELT management: A South

Korean case study. Asian EFL Journal, 48, 1-53.

Mabrouk, S. (2010). Developing the critical thinker in the average

student with Bloom’s cognitive taxonomy. Retrieved August 13,

2014, from

http://ww2.faulkner.edu/admin/Websites/jfarrell/Critical%20think

ing%20and%20B looms%20Taxonomy.pdf

Marzano, R., & Kendall, J. (2007). The new taxonomy of educational

objectives (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Mayer, R. E. (2002). Rote versus meaningful learning. Theory into

Practice, 41(4), 226-232.

McGregor, J. H. (1994). Cognitive processes and the use of information:

A qualitative study of higher-order thinking skills used in the

research process by students in a gifted program. School Library

Media Annual (SLMA), 12, 33-124.

Mosallanejad, N. (2008). Evaluation of high school English textbooks on

the basis of Bloom's taxonomy. Unpublished master‟s thesis,

Shiraz University, Iran.

Paul, R. W. (1985). Bloom's taxonomy and critical thinking instruction.

Educational Leadership, 42(8), 36-39.

Razmjoo, S. A., & Jozaghi, Z. (2010). The representation of multiple

intelligences types in the Top-Notch series: A textbook

evaluation. Journal of Pan-Pacific Association of Applied

Linguistics, 14(2), 59-84.

Razmjoo, S. A, & Kazempourfard, E. (2012). On the representation of

Bloom's revised taxonomy in Interchange coursebooks. The

Journal of Teaching Language Skills (JTLS), 4(1), 171-205.

Rezvani, R., & Amiri, T. (2012, October). Dominant intelligences in

ESP textbooks: multiple or single? Paper presented at the

Conference on Language Learning & Teaching: An

Interdisciplinary Approach. Iran, Mashad: Ferdowsi University

Press.

http://ww2.faulkner.edu/admin/Websites/jfarrell/Critical%20thinking%20and%20B

http://ww2.faulkner.edu/admin/Websites/jfarrell/Critical%20thinking%20and%20B

http://confbank.um.ac.ir/modules/conf_display/conferences/llt/cd40.pdf

http://confbank.um.ac.ir/modules/conf_display/conferences/llt/cd40.pdf


Riasati, M. J., & Zare, P. (2010). Textbook evaluation: EFL teachers‟

perspectives on New Interchange. Studies in Literature and

Language, 1(8), 54-60.

Riazi, A. M., & Mosallanejad, N. (2010). Evaluation of learning

objectives in Iranian high school and pre-university English

textbooks using Bloom‟s taxonomy. TESL-EJ, 13(4), 1-16.

Richards, J. C. (2001). Curriculum development in language teaching.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Richards, C., & Bohlke, D. (2012). Four Corners, student’s book 2 and

3. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Richards, J. C., Hull, J., & Proctor, S. (2005). New Interchange series:

English for international communication. Cambridge: CUP.

Roohani, A., Taheri, F., & Poorzanganeh, M (2014). Evaluating Four

Corners textbooks in terms of cognitive processes using Bloom‟s

revised taxonomy. RALS, 4(2), 51-67.

Roohani, A., & Heidari, N. (2013). Oral communication strategies and

multiple intelligences: Exploring the relationship. The journal of

teaching Language and Literature Society of Iran (TELL),

7(2), 97-125.

Roohani, A., & Zarei, M. (2013). Evaluating gender-bias in the Iranian

pre-university English textbooks. Indonesian Journal of Applied


Saslow, J. M., & Ascher, A. (2012). Top-Notch: English for today's

world, Fundamentals (2nd ed). New York: Pearson Longman.


world, Top-Notch 1 (2nd

ed). New York: Pearson Longman.








world, Summit 1 (2nd



world, Summit 2 (2nd


Sheldon, L. (1988). Evaluating ELT textbooks and materials. ELT

Journal, 42(2), 237-246.

Stefanakis, E. (2002). Multiple intelligences and portfolios: A window

into the learner's mind. Portsmouth: Heinemann.


Taase, Y. (2012). Multiple intelligences theory and Iranian textbooks: An

analysis. Journal of Pan-Pacific Association of Applied


Tajeddin, Z., & Teimournezhad, Sh. (2014). Exploring the hidden agenda

in the representation of culture in international and localised ELT

textbooks. The Language Learning Journal, 1, 1-14.

Thomas, A., & Thorne, G. (2009). How to increase higher-order

thinking. Retrieved September 18, 2014, from

http://www.cdl.org/resource-

library/articles/HOT.php?type=subject&id=18

Tomlinson, B. (ed.) (2003). Developing materials for language teaching.

London: Continuum.

Wen-Cheng, W., Chien-Hung, L., & Chung-Chieh, L. (2011). Thinking

of the textbook in the ESL/EFL classroom. English Language

Teaching, 4(2), 91-96.

White, R. V. (1997). The ELT curriculum: Design, innovation, and

management. Oxford: Blackwell.

http://www.cdl.org/resource-library/articles/HOT.php?type=subject&id=18

http://www.cdl.org/resource-library/articles/HOT.php?type=subject&id=18


APPENDIX A

LIST OF ACTIVITIES OF EACH INTELLIGENCE

Verbal/Linguistic

1. Note taking

2. Choral Speaking

3. Retelling

4. Listening to lectures

5. Word playing games

6. Presenting

7. Reading books

8. Discussing

9. Storytelling

10. Researching

11. Debating

12. Memorizing

13. Writing

14. Reading aloud

Logical/Mathematical

1. Making outlines

2. Logic puzzling

3. Collecting data

4. Using logical argument

5. Problem solving

6. Classifying

7. Critical thinking

8. Predicting

9. Inductive/Deductive reasoning

Spatial/Visual

1. Using visual awareness activities

2. Using Graphs and tables

3. Using Videos, slides and movies

4. Using charts and grids

5. Using art

6. Using maps and photos

7. Using graphic organizers

8. Student drawings

9. Imaginative story telling

10. Painting/picture/collage

11. Mind mapping

12. Using telescopes/microscopes

Bodily/Kinesthetic

1. Using hands-on activities

2. Going on field trips

3. Role-playing

4. Using creative movements

5. Miming

6. Using body language

7. Dramatizing

8. Cooperating in group rotation

9. Cooking and other “mess” activities

Musical

1. Singing

2. Playing live music

3. Playing background music patterns

4. Tapping out poetic rhythms

5. Using background music

6. Using Student made instruments

Interpersonal

1. Pair working

2. Peer teaching

3. Participating in classroom

parties

4. Group brainstorming

5. Group problem solving

6. Project working

7. Cooperative working

8. Peer editing

9. Sharing

10. Group Studying


Intrapersonal

1. Doing activities with a self-

evaluation component

2. Using meta-cognitive technique

3. Doing homework

4. Personal journal keeping

5. Creating checklist

6. Creating inventory

7. Doing individualized projects

8. Doing things by yourself

9. Independent reading

10. Silent reflecting

Naturalist

1. Reading outside

2. Using a microscope

3. Studying the stars

4. Collecting rocks

5. Bird watching

6. Identifying plants

7. Identifying insects

8. Building habitats

9. Going to the zoo

10. Going on a nature walk

(Adapted from Botelho, 2003, p. 146)


APPENDIX B DESCRIPTIONS OF THE RBT

Level Key words Examples Sample task

rubrics

Remembering

Define, describe,

identify, label, list,

match, name, outline,

reproduce, select, state

The student recalls

and/or quotes

information from

memory to the

teacher

Fill in the

blanks with

appropriate

words

Understanding

Describe, estimate,

explain, extend,

generalize, infer,

interpret, paraphrase,

predict, rewrite,

summarize, translate

The student

translates,

comprehends, or

interprets information

s/he has received

Answer the

questions

according to the

reading

Applying

Apply, change, compute,

demonstrate, discover,

manipulate, modify,

predict, prepare,

produce, relate, show,

solve, use

The student applies

the new information

in his/her future

assignments or

classroom activities

Make sentences

using the given

pattern and

words

Analyzing

Analyze, breaks down,

compare, contrast,

discriminate, distinguish,

identify, illustrate, infer,

outline, relate, select,

separate

The student compares

and contrasts a new

structure to the ones

previously learned

Compare the

following

words to see

how they sound

differently

Evaluating

Appraise, conclude,

critiques, evaluate,

judge, justifies, relate,

support

The student selects

the most effective

solution to a problem

and is able to justify

it

Which of the

followings is

the best answer

to the question?

Why?

Creating

Categorize, create,

devise, design, explain,

organize, plan, arrange,

reconstruct

The student integrates

information from

several sources to

solve a specific

problem or to answer

a question

Make sentences

using the

scrambled

words

english language teaching vol. 2, no. 3, pp.39-65, 2015...

Documents